AN ARGUMENT

 

AGAINST

 

MODERN COMMUNICATIONS

 

 

 

An Essay

By

 

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     In our modern day, we very literally communicate at the speed of light.  What is a sad factor and very real element of this, is that along with those advances, we have advanced our very worst traits as well.  For instance, the megalomaniacal, egocentric attitudes of celebrity within the world leader populations.

 

     I use public access to internet communications regularly for personal purposes.  Factually, I am writing this piece on a public machine now.  These networks are fraught with failure and inconsistency.  A person cannot even efficiently save a personal document file to disk regularly, much because of inter workings of the lan and security settings demonstrating the harsh peripheral side effects that most of them possess from the slip shod haste in effort to get the next hot product to the market.

 

     When a person considers just how inconsistent and vulnerable such communications are in general, it then poses what should be frightening elements within modern society.  This beyond even the common and more readily perceived criminal activities around identity crimes and fraud.

 

     This fear and the possibilities which produce it, should be recognized honestly for what they are… but such will never happen as activity of the sort would be ill for the reputation of the medium itself.

 

     The fact that there is no such thing as a 100% secure internet connection, LAN or network, should raise more question with people.  Especially those who continue to push for the complete and total integration of governmental workings and communications to become automated to some degree (which will yield total automation for all intent and purpose through human nature).

 

     It is not uncommon for such networks and internet connections to fail.  To freeze up.  Such bodes incredibly ill in regard to the fact that everyone communicates at the speed of light.

 

     In a matter of seconds, world changing occurrences can take place.  If it is that even the smallest glitch should occur within those automated systems, it is very much a possibility to miss the opportunity to counter any such directions which are not conducive to the majority of the rest of the world.  In other words, one slip from such insecure automation can and does provide the window of opportunity in a very real sense, for even the possibility of species annihilation.

 

     I should hope that the greed of those pushing for such measures as such integration, will set that want and drive aside long enough to realize that such measures are as well making such opportunities all the more prominent and possible, simple in their integration and dominance.

 

     This isn’t to say that such is the design, but historically, such has never been the design even and especially where developments of species threatening proportions have taken place and even come to fruition.

 

     In the modern climate and atmosphere of the “American Dream,” somewhere people have forgotten the peripheral responsibilities that inherently accompany such developments.  It is easy to say that nothing of the sort could happen, but such a statement is a direct contradiction and blatant disregard for the truth of the matter.  Even within the positive points which are put forward to promote such “efficiency” reside those ill possibilities inseparably.

 

     How much is one instant when one is speaking in terms of light speed communication?

 

     Consider ONE miscommunication at light speed in the atmosphere of a cold war?

 

     Any modern business person could answer that question for you… though the answer would be vague and without exact measure… simply because it cannot be measured.  In that we as a society are introducing to the world potential dangers to the proportions of that which cannot even be accurately measured.

 

     How difficult would it be to provide for such a “down time” in electronic equipment, no matter how “secure” any one or organization laid claim to them to be?  High school kids are doing the equivalent for entertainment purposes, and it is widely known that no sooner than a new program or technological advance hits the market, than someone has already figured a way to hack it or get around it entirely.

 

     In fact, it is also widely known that one of the founding “marketing ploys” in the success of technological advance, was the use of “bugs” themselves… this in the effort to promote the further purchase of other program improvements to insure future sales.

 

     How can that base philosophy, as it were, be conducive to any level of international or even domestic relations which depend.. in “life and death” instances, on the security and consistency of the communication medium which they employ?  Sure, a person can pit the need to “keep up” against the risk of such situations for the purpose of gaining that “account,” but is the compromise there in actually worth it?  To subject not only yourself but an entire nation and its relations to the risk of “non-response” due to some glitch in the communications placed there for no other reason than to insure some sort of business measure?

 

     I admit that these are the darker points within the modern advance of communications, but they are elements of it all the same and should be addressed in my opinion.

 

     I am not an employee of any large government entity, but the inconsistencies that I experience and see must be of some relationship to the over all consistencies of the medium itself.  How can anyone be comfortable with such a situation?

 

     When it is that one of the largest nuclear forces on the planet, which has untold amounts of other nations depending upon it even for survival in some instances, is at the mercy of even the whim of practical jokers, these questions are very much relevant.

 

     This doesn’t even begin to address the business arena much less the international business arena, where in the practice of corporate espionage and such activities as purposefully crashing entire networks for the purpose of potential gains are quite common.  It isn’t a far leap from that business arena and activity to those of the government structures.  In many cases, they are even one and the same for all that it matters in the real sense.

 

     This means that potentially a sizeable nuclear device can be put into motion for the purpose of detonation somewhere, and the proper entities within that target nation or others for that matter, could very really miss the fact that it now had a hostile, inbound nuclear device.  In the glitch of an instant.

 

     Of course, the type of things we are actually facing beyond the common nuke scare, are not of the magnitude that would entail another large nation launching a missile so much as smaller versions of the same type of activity in other forms.  This simply presents a larger problem and concern in those inconsistencies…. Many of which, again, are fueled through megalomania and ego strokes of business motion and sadly, even the concerns around celebrity.

 

     It ain’t the good ol’ days, fellers… so to speak.  But bringing everything head long into such a limited and dangerous area isn’t necessarily advance, either.

 

It really all continues to return to an inherent nature of human tendency, while managing to side step existing social mechanisms meant to utilize those tendencies toward various corruptions through the blinding speed itself.  It seems to amplify the effects natural common in society and communications to a degree that does become rather a potential detriment.  “Red lining” and just beyond, all of the time.

 

This then presents other noticeable problems within the workings of the social structure and particularly governing.

 

As it is there exist several entities within the structure of the United States Government which exist presumably with a similar goal, but are – by design, set apart in what has become a pronounced form of competition within the modern speed of communications.

 

It wasn’t intended as such to the degree that it is, from what I can tell.  In fact, as per said design and what I can discern, this structure was intended very much to increase the security and efficiency in many ways, of the over all structure.  Tending to place each existing area in contention with one another as per a fail safe as well as a sort of self monitoring system.

 

One checks the others so to speak.

 

In the atmosphere of modern communications, this balance has been set aside to some degree while amplifying the competitive aspects.  Further enabling greater infractions in and of one another within the growing importance of said competition.  Information can be added and removed instantly in our day and age, from any data base and configuration of said data bases ON THE PLANET.

 

This then acts to shackle if not hobble the entirety of the intended result in design.

 

Further then, there is the aspect of information sharing.  Again, as per said initial designs and from my perspective and understanding, these separate information areas were meant to be as such.  Even further still, as has been presented, information can be added and removed with very little effort.

 

Within this area in modern communications is yet another concern, and again in regard to the problems presented with the “hyper-independence” of the given entities and their “information” consistency as well as the concern with security measures.

 

If it were that said entities removed the aspect of separation, it then exposes the entirety of the structure to greater dangers of compromise as per the presumed co-existing goal.

 

If they continue in the light of extreme competition and entire independence of one another, with the slight alteration of removing the “common goal,” a person (and Nation) is then faced with the prospect of literal secession, though not in the most commonly understood ways.  More to the degree of a functioning parasitic dynamic which tends to resemble something not related to the common goal what so ever.

 

The want to then combine all information sources, is again a step in removing the inherent security measures of the design through compromising the independence of each in such a unified and binding point of connection.  Which could result in an even worse case dynamic within and of said structure.

 

Further security dangers in this modern means of information which few consider is through accessing state and local government sources with the result of influence on said independent sources – even then, independently.  It is possible to actually influence each and the others with entirely different information instantly. 

 

This pertains to the dangers of outside influence on state and local areas of information as well, not just the dangers of wrongful information being entered from within the organized local and state structures.

 

In regard to other such risks, with the heightened level of communications security through out the nation, it is now possible to extend such influence from even public terminals.  And again, from even outside of said public networks easier as per security measures in such regard than from outside of state and local networks.

 

Anyone with even grade school levels of propaganda skills could potentially reek havoc to some degree.  Which is something that is widely overlooked in regard to such security issues.

 

This even being of concern in regard to corporate interests and influence on said public networks.

 

It is a rather intriguing situation to say the least.

 

How does one use modern communication technologies to accurately stay in touch with the populous when it is so easily compromised?

 

How can said information sources be trusted to any degree given the ease with which even the most guarded of information networks can be compromised, if even only from wrongful, mis-entered information?

 

How can entire nations efficiently exist without the advantage of modern communications?

 

Definitely daunting questions on any level.  Especially in regard to efficiency in and on the level of national concerns pertaining to issues from within.  Even further in regard to the level of competition between said communication providers and developers.

 

Consider how easily the modern social environment is effected with the utterance of just one word which actually pertains to nothing in particular if issued in the proper environment?  Then consider that “one word” being several forms of competitive propaganda traveling at light speed.

 

Then even further, consider the more common tactics and competitive techniques within the communications technology world…being, in no uncertain terms, sabotage and slander.  As much or even more effort being put into hamstringing competition in order to assert some superiority, than in simply presenting a consistent and efficient product.

 

When that social dynamic is applied alone, even hypothetically, to the larger movement of social concerns and even governing, it then presents a rather pitiable potential for social inter-workings and efficiency.

 

The movement of information is nothing less than priority.  That is most definite.

 

But what is there to say when it is that the information being moved with such speed, is no where near accurate or reliable simply from the polarization effect in the distortion concerning such competition and power plays?  What value has it when the major percentage of it has been compromised or simply cannot be trusted as per the intended information need it presents itself as?

 

It many respects it might as well be pornography and video games that constitute the information being transferred.  At least from personal observation, that is what seems to function with the most consistency.

 

Surprisingly, this continues as a direction in said information exchange, even in the face of the fact, and potential damage, to the idea of value itself.

 

Somehow now demanding the priority of importance beyond the specific use of said information appliance.

 

This then presents the impasse of “acting” on such information.  In the pressure of modern movement, it is important to be “on the ball” so to speak… but in many cases, especially concerning higher level security issues, a “move” cannot be recounted or removed.  Even if it is a “move” on bad information.

 

It doesn’t matter in that sense.  The “move” will have already been made.  Regardless of the outcome and/or chain reaction of results.  Which again adds an aspect to the modern game of such security measures and further within the inter-working dynamic of said structure design.

 

To “beat someone to the punch” could very well end in ones own demise in the modern day.  

 

Given, of course, the reliability of ones information source.